Sunday, June 18, 2006

Thank you...

Thank you for all the positive comments received this week! I will strive to make this an entertaining blog. Links have been added to the GM=tc^3 website, also a paper about the observed "c change". Be sure to look at the graph; if a prediction fits the data this closely it might mean something! Since this is a science blog, there will be many astronomical pictures. This is the American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in San Francisco, a display with Cassini scientists. Someone is in front of the poster, so I'll put some photos here."Sources of Mass/Energy in Saturn Rings". Above is a temperature map of Enceladus. It was predicted that the warmest part of the surface would be facing the Sun, yet the "hot spot" is the South Pole. That is also the origin of the gaseous plume venting into Space and resupplying E Ring.This is Saturn herself seen in infrared by our Subaru telescope atop Mauna Kea. There is a "hot spot" centred within 2-3 degrees of the South Pole most visible at 17.65 microns. No hot spots have been observed at the North Pole. Something unusual is happening within these worlds. Since Saturn and the Rings are subjects of study for me, there will be more photos soon.

Since speed has units ms^-1, GM has units of (m^3)(s^-2) = s(ms^-1)^3. This implies GM is equivalent to tc^3.

However there is always the risk in Dimensional Analysis that there could be some dimension-less multiplying factor which you miss, so you should really say:

GM = atc^3,

where "a" represents a constant. Only after you check things carefully can you be sure what constant "a" represents. For example, dimension-less ratios that commonly occur in physics equations are numbers like 2, Pi, 2Pi, and so on.

In this case, however, a = 1, so the equation is just:

GM = tc^3.

Similarly, Planck obtained the planck length, mass and time using Dimensional Analysis.

In Planck's case there is no evidence that what he is dealing with maps on to reality.

There's no evidence for the Planck size in string theory (where it is assumed to be a scale factor).

In fact, a more natural size is far smaller than the Planck size: the black hole radius (event horizon radius) for an electron, 2GM/c^2, where M is electron mass.

I think that there should be some effort made to find a physically based theoretical derivation of

Links to this post:

About Me

Full-time scientist. Before graduating I learned that the speed of light is slowing down and originated the "GM=tc^3" theory, which explains the dark energy problem and most physicists still can't explain. More recent work seeks Black Holes in some unexpected places, even within Earth. I've been working at NASA in Houston on studies of the Moon, and have an insider's view of the Space program. Actress in film, television and stages from Honolulu to Houston. In spare time I fight off hostile aliens, explore a strange world and unusual forms of life.